I've been in the IT industry since the time of the dinosaurs (ICL anyone?). I've written books about the Internet and networking, consulted for all sorts of companies, and been a contributor and columnist for Network World for 18 years (check out my Backspin and Gearhead columns). I created and co-founded Netratings (now wholly owned by Nielsen) and have CTO'ed for a couple of startups. I live in Ventura, CA. I do not surf.

AT&T and Verizon End Run Net Neutrality Rules By Giving You (Some) Free Mobile Data - At A Cost

The debate over Net Neutrality (that’s the idea that Internet Service Providers should not interfere with the free flow of network traffic for financial gain) has remained contentious ever since the FCC issued rules in 2010 that prohibited ISPs from blocking or slowing traffic for anything other than network management purposes.

While the Republican party immediately vowed to overturn the FCCFCC ruling that hasn’t happened so far and the policy still stands today. But although FCC rules prevent ISPs from interfering with traffic to favor a service, an application, or a Web site there’s nothing to say that an ISP can’t interfere with users’ decisions about what they choose to access.

In a cunning move to do just that, AT&TAT&T‘s CEO, Randall Stephenson, last week told a group of investors that AT&T plans to charge content providers and app developers to keep their data use from counting against their mobile data caps. And AT&T aren’t alone in this; a few days earlier the Wall Street Journal reported that Verizon Wireless is in discussions with the sports network ESPNESPN to subsidize mobile data plans so that ESPN content would not count against monthly limits.

Neither of these plans would violate the FCC Net Neutrality rules but they do, in effect, coerce users into making decision about data usage that favors specific sources and services to the financial benefit of the ISP.

If AT&T and Verizon get their way, the days of the open Internet are numbered. Allowing a few deep-pocketed partners to pay for preferred treatment will stifle innovation, hinder competition, raise prices over time and give mobile phone companies the power to pick and choose the content you can access.

Mr. Wood continued:

AT&T has claimed for years that network congestion is the reason it needs data caps and steep overage fees. But if ESPN and other rich companies can pay to get around these artificial limits, it suggests what we’ve long suspected: AT&T’s jacked-up fees and penalties are just there to gouge consumers. AT&T’s whole business plan is to profit from the false scarcity it’s created.

The Free Press goes on to point out that should users wind up supporting these schemes it will create a powerful incentive for mobile ISPs to lower their caps and increase prices. The Free Press contends:

Cable subscribers can also expect their bills to go up as companies like ESPN subsidize this new venture through higher charges to pay-TV customers. This scheme also harms the next Netflix, Vimeo or any other start-up that might challenge the big media companies but can’t afford to pay for other people’s Internet usage. It locks in today’s dominant players. And in the long run, all consumers will pay more.

These new strategies from AT&T and Verizon are, indeed, very clever and effectively end run the Net Neutrality rules. Will the FCC weigh in and amend the rules or is this going to define the future of mobile data access?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

My use of “coerce” is accurate … I use it in the sense of the second definition you cite “2: to compel to an act or choice”. Coercion isn’t always obvious, it’s often subtle and relies on offering alternatives that appear to be equal but where one choice has an advantage or disadvantage over the other. These companies are giving people a choice to take the freebie (which they have already actually paid for) or not. Not taking the freebie and choosing an alternative has a cost so there is not a real choice when it comes, for example, to watching ESPN as opposed to another sports channel. That is coercive.

I disagree but while it would be fun to argue semantics and philosophy with you I, alas,do not have the time. Perhaps you’d prefer to replace the word “coerce” with “inveigle” or “seduce” if that would make you happier. The point is, as I previously commented, these ISPs are offering alternatives where one choice has an advantage over the other that appears to be in the consumer’s favor but actually restricts choice. What really matters is that by the user making that choice it fulfills the ISPs’ agenda to end run the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules and enriches the ISP with the possible consequences as pointed out by Free Press.